This is a really bad form of trying to get the point of your organization, thought, or sexual orientation across.
The Queen James Bible is a bible translation, "edited to prevent homophobic misinterpretation of God's Word."1
Thus, it is the homosexual's bible. What is really the saddest notion of this bible is the fact that the mistranslations and reasons for the mistranslations can only be categorized as lying to the LGBT movement. If you are apart of the homosexual agenda or support said agenda and you believe this bible is in your favor, unfortunately it's not. Misrepresenting truth does not do justice to the members of the LGBT movement. In fact this should create an outrage, considering the editor's of this work have lied to you.
Homosexuality was first mentioned in the Bible in 1946 in the Revised Standard Version. There is no mention of or reference to homosexuality in any Bible prior to this – only interpretations have been made. Anti-LGBT Bible interpretations commonly cite only eight verses in the Bible that they interpret to mean homosexuality is a sin; Eight verses in a book of thousands!2This is just simply untrue. First, the RSV mentioned in this quote is an, "authorized revision of the American Standard Version, published in 1901, which was a revision of the King James Version, published in 1611."3 Thus the QJV fails to take into account the fact that while they prefer the KJV, the RSV actually comes from it. And if we take one of the examples of "anti-LGBT" misinterpretation from all three versions, there wasn't much changed at all, let alone an introduction of "anti-gay" material.
Romans 1:26, 27
1611 KJV
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: fo even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was met.
ASV
“For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.”
RSV
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
Your differences are synonymous with each other, really. But this is a clear cut example that the RSV is not the first text to go against homosexuality. In fact the Geneva translation of 1557 revised Tyndale's translation of 1534. Notice what the Geneva translation states in Romans 1:26, 17:
“For this cause God gaue them vp vnto vile affections: for euen their women did change the naturall vse into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men left the naturall vse of the woman, and burned in their lust one toward another, and man with man wrought filthinesse, and receiued in themselues such recompence of their errour, as was meete.”
Apart from simply the evolution of the English language as a difference, you don't see anything different from the RSV.
Furthermore, the Latin Vulgate, prepared around 383-405, which was the standard version of the Bible for centuries, actually isn't that different from the RSV:
Propterea tradidit illos Deus in passiones ignominiæ : nam feminæ eorum immutaverunt naturalem usum in eum usum qui est contra naturam. Similiter autem et masculi, relicto naturali usu feminæ, exarserunt in desideriis suis in invicem, masculi in masculos turpitudinem operantes, et mercedem, quam oportuit, erroris sui in semetipsis recipientes. (For this cause, God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts, one towards another: men with men, working that which is filthy and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.)
But as many of you know my love for the original language will recognize even though the above information on just two verses is staggeringly enough evidence to show the dishonesty of the Queen James Bible, what ultimately matters is the original text.
The next thing to examine is the following assertion:
The King James Bible is the most popular Bible of all time, and arguably the most important English language document of all time. The brainchild and namesake of King James I, who wanted an English language Bible that all could own and read, it has been in print for over 400 years and has brought more people to Christ than any other Bible translation. Commonly known to biographers but often surprising to most Christians, King James I was a well-known bisexual. Though he did marry a woman, his many gay relationships were so well-known that amongst some of his friends and court, he was known as “Queen James.” It is in his great debt and honor that we name The Queen James Bible so.4I would love to see the evidence for the assertion that the KJV has brought more people to Christ than any other Bible. But if that were true, why change its text? What reason would you have to alter the greatest soul winning Bible ever? Because it pronounces homosexuality as a sin? Then wouldn't that mean that the best source for salvation from sin saying that homosexuality is a sin is a rather important message?
Not only did King James marry a woman, he had eight children with her. Stephen A. Coston, Sr. has also written extensive information that shed's incredible doubt as to King James' bi-sexual orientation as well. Regardless, however, why does the Queen James Bible seek to alter the text of the 1769 edition, which is really a revision of the 1611? In other words if the RSV was the first anti-gay Bible, wouldn't the editions before it be fine by themselves? For example, the 1769 KJV? The editors of the Queen James Bible prefer that edition, but that edition would still be "anti-gay" by both the content it actually contains, as well as the editors of the Queen James Bible's own admission. If you are a homosexual reading the Queen James Bible or its website, you're being lied to. So if you're having to change the 1769 King James bible, then this isn't an obvious link to a gay king, whether he actually was or not.
"Most English Bible translations that actively condemn homosexuality have based themselves on the King James Version and have erroneously adapted its words to support their own agenda. We wanted to return to the clean source and start there."5
Really? So the reason the editors chose the 1769 KJV is to go to the clean source? Yet what follows on this same page is showing what the 1769 KJV said, and then showing the QJV's change, and we're suppose to believe that the editors are returning "to the clean source"? This is just simple dishonesty creating inconsistencies.
"The Bible says nothing about homosexuality."5 False, but if that were true, shouldn't that be a cause of concern since it speaks volumes about heterosexuality? Not to mention now we have inconsistencies among the LGBT community as seen here.
The Bible is the word of God translated by man. This (saying nothing countless translations and the evolution of language itself) means the Bible can be interpreted in different ways, leading to what we call “interpretive ambiguity.” In editing The Queen James Bible we were faced with the decision to modify existing interpretively ambiguous language, or simply to delete it.False. The Bible is the word of God given to men, the translations that have followed it are translations by men. Therefore, no the Bible cannot be interpreted different ways. If it could be, why would the translation of the RSV be wrong? That would just simply be one way to interpret the Bible, right? That's just simply fallacious, relativistic thinking that attempts to create a presupposition that fits the homosexual worldview. As for the "ambiguous" language I do believe the above text comparison between the Vulgate, Geneva, KJV, ASV, and RSV translations show the reality that while languages evolve or even cross-languages themselves, translations have actually been saying the same thing.
We had to see Genesis 19:5 coming up next in the selected texts that have been "edited". The usual idea is that Sodom's problem was not homosexuality but forced homosexuality i.e. rape. So this is how the QJV attempts to deal with this:
"And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may rape and humiliate them." (QJV) (Page 21)
Despite the interpretive reasoning away from the text that the QJV editor's give, this just simply isn't a translation. The word "humiliate" just simply is not in the original text, nor is "rape" the appropriate translation. The fact is, Genesis 19:7, Lot's appeal that the men do not act wickedly with the angels isn't showing that they were wanting to rape them per se, it shows that the entire concept of the men of the city knowing the angels sexually is wicked. A passage of Scripture that the QJV failed to retranslate is 2 Peter 2:7, 8:
“and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds),”
(2 Peter 2:7–8 NAS95)
So are they just simply raping every day? That's not Peter's conclusion, his conclusion was simply that they lived for promiscuous and excessive sex which is what "sensual conduct" means.
Jude 7, which is retranslated by the QJV (as it would have to be) shows that it's not just a concept of "rape" but it's the fact that ἐκπορνεύω (gross immorality) is a word for indulging in illicit sexual relationships in general.
In addition to this, Ezekiel 16 actually tells us what the guilt of Sodom was.
“As I live,” declares the Lord GOD, “Sodom, your sister and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. “Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. “Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it.”
(Ezekiel 16:48–50 NAS95)
The Greek translation actually says they were living lewdly (σπαταλάω). This word means to give oneself over to pleasure and specifically in the realm of sexual pleasure. They had sexually immodest and promiscuous behavior, and it's clear that that was in the realm of homosexuality.
Leviticus 18:22; 20:13 are the next two.
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind in the temple of Molech: it is an abomination."(QJV) (Page 75)
"If a man also lie with mankind in the temple of Molech, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (QJV) (Page 76)
In the temple of Molech? The contextual concern of Molech in Leviticus 18 is child sacrifice not temple prostitution. Regardless, inserting the temple of Molech in both verses is not a translation, it's just not there in the Hebrew text of those verses. The texts are actually incredibly clear, if you're having relations with a man as a man as you would have with a woman, you've broken the law of God.
In addition to this, if we're talking about translations, how about the Greek translation of Leviticus 18:22 that actually says, "And you will not lie with a male in sexual intercorse (κοίτη) as with a woman." The same thing is said in Lev 20:23, "and whoever lies with a male as with a woman in sexual intercorse has committed an abomination". It mentions nothing about the context of this being the temple of Molech. By the way, the underlying Hebrew word שׁכב also means sexual intercorse.
1 Corinthians 6:9
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor morally weak, nor promiscuous" (QJV) (Page 554)
The point here that is made is that "effiminate" just means "morally weak". And the KJV's "abusers of themselves with mankind" just means promiscuous. The editors have brought out "kotais"which is the wrong transliteration; it is correctly "koitē, or koitēs". The interesting thing is this is the word that is used in Lev 18:22 and Lev 20:23 in the Greek translation mentioned above. So it obviously means sexual intercourse. However what the QJV translates as "morally weak" in this context means, "pertaining to being passive in a same-sex relationship, effeminate"6 If μαλακός (malakos) were meaning "morally weak" there are no other contextual usages inside and outside of the Bible that hold that definition. This is obviously a post-modern day attempt at changing its meaning.
Promiscuous is a translation of ἀρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoitēs), which isn't just simply promiscuity. It does in fact mean homosexuality as in, "a male who engages in sexual activity with a person of his own sex".7 It's interesting to note the BDAG's citation of Leviticus 20:13 as part of the definiton of ἀρσενοκοίτης. Are you also noticing that on the editors page5 of the QJV bible no lexical sources are being used? And there are not sources to back up their claims. ἀρσενοκοίτης is still used in modern Greek for homosexuals. Just feel free to type that into Google Translate
So 1 Corinthians 6:9 does indicate that homosexuals do not inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Tim 1:10
For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; (QJV) (Page 575)
"Defile themselves" is ἀρσενοκοίτης which has just been proven to mean homosexual, so this translation falls short of the original text as well.
Not only that, but Christ's clear teaching in Matthew 19:4, 5 quoting Genesis 1:27; 5:2, Jesus clearly outlines the way relationships were suppose to be from the beginning of creation as in "male and female". This is a teaching echoed in Ephesians 5:31.
I also find it detrimental to the Queen James Bible to note 1 Corinthians 7. Notice,
“Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.” (1 Corinthians 7:1–2 NAS95)
You can't escape the meaning of 1 Corinthians 7. In order to avoid sexual immorality of any kind, a man is to have his own wife, and woman is to have her own husband. Paul explicitly confines the realm of sexual relationships not just to a man and a woman, but to a husband and a wife. So there is no such thing as biblically sanctioned sexual relationships outside of holy matrimony, and that is only of a man and a woman.
Thus as you can clearly see, the translation known as the Queen James Bible fails to handle the Greek text appropriately. It's safe to say at this juncture that we may reject the Queen James Bible.
Notes:
1). http://queenjamesbible.com/
2). Ibid
3). The Revised Standard Version (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1971), preface.
4). http://queenjamesbible.com/
5). http://queenjamesbible.com/gay-bible/
6).William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (3rd ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 613.
No comments:
Post a Comment